LEELAVATHI SURESH KUNDER,MUMBAI vs. WARD 42(2)(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7982/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order of the learned CIT(A) was to be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal acknowledged that while multiple hearing notices were issued, the period available to the assessee to respond and place material on record was relatively short, especially considering the nature of the grounds raised before the CIT(A). These grounds included the year of taxability of capital gains from a redevelopment arrangement, the applicability of section 45(5A), and the claim for deduction under section 54. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without examining these grounds on their merits, which is contrary to the requirement of a reasoned order under section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to serve the interests of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the grounds, which would be decided independently by the learned CIT(A). The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Leelavathi Suresh Kunder, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal arose from an assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the Assessing Officer determined the total income at ₹9,32,657, significantly higher than the returned income of ₹1,23,450. The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) on 21.05.2026. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate time to present the case and supporting material, despite the appeal being filed on 23.03.2026 and the first hearing notice issued on 10.04.2026, with the order passed on 21.05.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without affording the assessee adequate opportunity to present her case and supporting material, thereby violating principles of natural justice, in light of the limited time between the filing of the appeal and the disposal order? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the interval of approximately six weeks between the first hearing notice and the appellate order was insufficient to gather and present all relevant facts and supporting material. The dismissal was ex parte, and the assessee sought restoration to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue before the Tribunal. However, the CIT(A)'s order, as per the Tribunal's observation, noted that hearing notices were issued on multiple dates (10.04.2026, 29.04.2026, 07.05.2026, and 14.05.2026) and that the assessee had previously sought additional time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 45(5A),Section 54,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Dedhia, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR DR
Hearing: 28/09/2026Pronounced: 28/09/2026

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [“learned CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2018–19, arising from the assessment order passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-

2 Leelavathi Suresh Kunder tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer determined the assessee’s total income at ₹9,32,657, as against the returned income of ₹1,23,450. 2. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal was disposed of ex parte without affording the assessee adequate time to place the relevant facts and supporting material before the learned CIT(A). In particular, it was pointe

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →